First (1st) Amendment, Freedom of Religion - Professor Mazur, Study notes of Law

Constitutional Law (Con Law) study outline for final exams for Professor Mazur's Constitutional Law class at UF Levin College of Law. Section 1 topics include but not limited to: First (1st) Amendment, Freedom of Religion

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 05/17/2012

gator_law
gator_law 🇺🇸

4.3

(4)

13 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Constitutional Law Outline
Professor Mazur, Spring 2010
Professor Mazur, Spring 2010
! ! us.docsity.com!
I. First Amendment: Religion
A. Introduction
I. Two clauses dealing with Religion
1. Establishment clause “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion
a. Purpose is to prevent government from endorsing/supporting a religion
b. Incorporated into the Due Process Clause by Everson v. Board of Education.
c. More controversial than free exercise because it is directed at the government
2. Free Exercise Clause “or prohibiting free exercise thereof”
a. Main purpose is to prevent government from outlawing or burdening a person’s pursuit
of whatever religion, beliefs, and practices he chooses. Government cannot burden one’s
belief
b. First applied to the states through incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the 14th in
Cantwell v. Connecticut.
c. Often happens when government:
i. Acts in pursuit of non-religious objectives by forbidding conduct required by a
religion (army forbidding hats but Jews required to wear yamakas according to
Jewish religion) OR
ii. Compels/encourages conduct forbidden by belief (Sherbert: awarding benefits to
jobless workers who make themselves available to work Mon-Sat à encourages
conduct that violates religious beliefs that people can’t work on Sabbath. Gvt must
exempt to avoid unintentional interference w/ religion if it can be done w/o impairing
compelling purpose.)
II. Both clauses protect freedom of religious belief and actions. Many government actions would
violate both at the same time.
III. Conflict arises when: religious group asks for gvt benefit.
1. If benefit given à Establishment problem
2. If benefit not given à could be burdening of religion
3. When these clauses conflict, Free Exercise Clause > Establishment Clause
IV. Government actions to facilitate free exercise might be challenged as impermissible
establishments and government efforts to refrain from establishing religion might be objected to
as denying the free exercise of religion.
V. Lemon Test: this is the primary test used for the establishment clause which states;
1. The government violates the Establishment Clause if the government’s primary purpose is to
advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive
government entanglement with religion.
a. Anytime the government acts to protect free exercise of religion, its primary purpose is to
advance religion; any time the principal effect is to facilitate free exercise, the
government is aiding religion.
i. Government recognized this tension is inherent in the 1st Amendment and has noted
the difficulty of finding “a neutral course between the two religions Clauses, both of
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download First (1st) Amendment, Freedom of Religion - Professor Mazur and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 I. First Amendment: Religion A. Introduction I. Two clauses dealing with Religion

  1. Establishment clause – “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion a. Purpose is to prevent government from endorsing/supporting a religion b. Incorporated into the Due Process Clause by Everson v. Board of Education. c. More controversial than free exercise because it is directed at the government
  2. Free Exercise Clause – “or prohibiting free exercise thereof” a. Main purpose is to prevent government from outlawing or burdening a person’s pursuit of whatever religion, beliefs, and practices he chooses. Government cannot burden one’s belief b. First applied to the states through incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the 14th^ in Cantwell v. Connecticut. c. Often happens when government: i. Acts in pursuit of non-religious objectives by forbidding conduct required by a religion (army forbidding hats but Jews required to wear yamakas according to Jewish religion) OR ii. Compels/encourages conduct forbidden by belief ( Sherbert: awarding benefits to jobless workers who make themselves available to work Mon-Sat à encourages conduct that violates religious beliefs that people can’t work on Sabbath. Gvt must exempt to avoid unintentional interference w/ religion if it can be done w/o impairing compelling purpose .) II. Both clauses protect freedom of religious belief and actions. Many government actions would violate both at the same time. III. Conflict arises when: religious group asks for gvt benefit. 1. If benefit given à Establishment problem 2. If benefit not given à could be burdening of religion 3. When these clauses conflict, Free Exercise Clause > Establishment Clause IV. Government actions to facilitate free exercise might be challenged as impermissible establishments and government efforts to refrain from establishing religion might be objected to as denying the free exercise of religion. V. Lemon Test : this is the primary test used for the establishment clause which states;
  3. The government violates the Establishment Clause if the government’s primary purpose is to advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion. a. Anytime the government acts to protect free exercise of religion, its primary purpose is to advance religion; any time the principal effect is to facilitate free exercise, the government is aiding religion. i. Government recognized this tension is inherent in the 1st^ Amendment and has noted the difficulty of finding “a neutral course between the two religions Clauses, both of

Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other.” VI. What is religion?

  1. Any attempt to define religion raises concern that choosing a single definition is itself an establishment of religion.
  2. There is a desire for a broad definition of religion for the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause so as to maximize protection for religious conduct, but a narrow definition of religion for establishment clause analysis so as to limit the constraints on government B. Free Exercise Clause I. The Court has thus said that the free exercise clause “embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” II. The free exercise clause is also invoked when the government requires conduct that a person’s religions prohibits. III. Intentional v. Unintentional Burdens:
  3. If interference with religion is intentional à Strict Scrutiny; ( Sherbert v. Verner)
  4. If unintentional à Rational Bases test IV. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith - free exercise clause not violated by neutral law of general applicability
  5. Facts: Native Americans challenged law that prohibited use of peyote because of state determination that their religious belief constituted misconduct disqualifying them from receiving unemployment benefits. a. Sherbert : state denying unemployment benefits to religion lady who quit job to not work on Sabbath i. Applied SS : must be compelling purpose, no less restrictive means. ii. Must be closely connected b/w regulation and compelling purpose (NOTE: often purpose is not compelling even if useful. Anarchy concern is that most law would not meet SS standard.) b. Holding : Free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge a neutral law of general applicability. No matter how much a law burdens religious practices, it is constitutional so long as it does not single out religious behavior for punishment and was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion. i. RULE: No free exercise issue if there is laws of general application ii. Rejects using SS on neutral, generally applicable law that burdens religion because cannot presume every regulation invalid that does not protect all religions.
  • Court avoids SS and adopts “general/neutral law = okay” to avoid regulating practice of religion. c. Concurrence : law should be upheld because there is a compelling interest in preventing use of peyote d. Dissent : Inadequate protection of religion; religion is a fundamental right and law burdening them should be subject to strict scrutiny

Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 Professor Mazur, Spring 2010

  1. Why is bussing kids to parochial schools not funded by government?: Line drawn in terms of direct financial benefit. Display cases don’t involve provision of some tangible benefit (money) but rather “endorsement or approval.” Here, it is prohibition of granting tangible benefit to parochial schools. (Churches would receive money.) a. Lemon : although there is no facial purpose in providing money to parochial schools. IV. What is money for? If gvt grants being used to subsidize religious practice à establishment. This is contrasted in social services provided by churches to feed the poor. V. Doe : If school’s process can be reasonably viewed as supporting school prayer, allowing student body election to allow student to choose to give prayer is irrelevant. VI. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia - gvt must treat religion equally in schools
  2. Facts : UVA decided not to fund club’s student paper based on fact of club’s religious nature.
  3. Holding : overbroad exclusion of school funds; if funding non-religious organizations, must fund religious organizations. a. Bright Line ( Lemon ): Focused on inability of financial grants given to religious-based orgs nor provide direct benefits of any kind. à that would be violation of establishment clause. b. Dissent : use of public funds to subsidize religious organizations is categorically forbidden. i. NOTES: School is wrong in understanding bright-line of Lemon and subsidizing religious practice.
  • Although newsletter discusses religion, it is not religious practice. Establishment clause doesn’t mean schools must restrict students from talking about religion. By prohibiting funding to this org is making a content-based judgment. VII.County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter
  1. Facts : holiday displays, menorah with Christmas tree & decorations & nativity scene separately displayed.
  2. “Untended religious display ” of symbols on public property: speaker is gone ; when separating display from speaker, appearance at public place gives the rational thought it looks like it is the governments message. a. Tended: speaker holding signs; right to engage in speech on public property. (walking w/ signs) b. Could be argued displays blurred by “throwing in a Santa”. More important whether you feel sense of endorsement where Court does perceive one with nativity scene and not w/ menorah. c. In Lemon terms: what is the effect? Court sees endorsement of nativity scene but thinks its more secular w/ menorah b/c its blurred and a lot going on.
  3. Holding Blackman: separatism; “Relevant question is whether the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah has the effect of endorsing both Christian and Jewish faiths, or rather simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-

Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 Professor Mazur, Spring 2010 holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society. Of the two interpretations of this particular display, the latter seems far more plausible and is also in line with Lynch .”

  1. Concurrence; O’Connor : Neutrality view: does display convey message to Christians that they are preferable members? OR in contrast, does these symbols send “freedom to choose” religion. If talking about “what kind of message being conveyed” à must neutrality; latter is okay.
  2. Concurrence of Brennan/Stevens : separatism; religious viewpoints of displays could disrespect religious beliefs. a. the establishment clause does not allow public bodies to foment such disagreement
  3. Kennedy Accommodation view : sees hostility toward religion in insisting either lack of endorsement or separatism. Court is picking out one idea and branding one idea as inappropriate.